An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings
Proud To Be An Oath Keeper
READY TO REVOLT: Oath Keepers pledges to prevent dictatorship in United States
Group asks police and military to lay down arms in response to orders deemed unlawful
“The whole point of Oath Keepers is to stop a dictatorship from ever happening here,” Rhodes, a former Army paratrooper and Yale-trained lawyer, said in an interview with the Review-Journal. “My focus is on the guys with the guns, because they can’t do it without them.
“We say if the American people decide it’s time for a revolution, we’ll fight with you.”
That type of rhetoric has caught the attention of groups that track extremist activity in the United States.
I never in my wildest dreams would have thought that people who want to preserve the U.S. Constitution would be called ‘extremist’. It’s a sad commentary on today’s society.
In a July report titled “Return of the Militias,” the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center singled out Oath Keepers as “a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival.”
Loving your country is a bad thing? I guess so, since there are so many out to destroy her.
The Patriot movement, so named because its adherents believe the federal government has stepped on the constitutional ideals of the American Revolution, gained traction in the 1990s and has been closely linked to anti-government militia and white supremacist movements.
Of all the people I’ve met through the Tea Parties, and Oath Keepers, not one single person has expressed ANY ‘white supremacist’ sentiments. NOT ONE! When it comes to racism, I doubt anyone could top SPLC!
Oath Keepers got some unwanted attention in April when an Oklahoma man loosely connected to the group was arrested for threatening violence at an anti-tax protest in Oklahoma City. Rhodes called the man “a nut” who had no real affiliation with his group.
My cats could say they were associated with Oath Keepers, that doesn’t make it so. REAL OK’s are not promoting any violence.
According to the law center, militia groups are re-emerging in this country partly as a result of racial animosity toward Obama.
Two words: BULL and SHIT! For one thing, the OK is NOT a “militia group”. Second, no one gives a flying flip what color Obama is on the outside. It’s the color of his insides that has people worried. That color would be RED, as in Marxism!
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security reached a similar conclusion in a report earlier this year about the rise of right-wing extremism. The report said the nation’s economic downturn and Obama’s race are “unique drivers for right-wing radicalization and recruitment.”
I repeat, and will continue repeating: External color is NOT an issue. The economic downturn is being increased continuously by policies. Perhaps these people should look into the types who carry around signs promoting the murder of American soldiers, or destroying vehicles, or destroying businesses.
The homeland security report added that “disgruntled military veterans” might be vulnerable to recruitment by right-wing extremist groups.
That warning was enough to make Rhodes feel paranoid.
It should makes us ALL feel paranoid!
“They’re accusing anybody who opposes Obama of being a racist or a potential terrorist,” he said. “What they’re saying is, ‘We’re coming after you.’”
The motto of Oath Keepers: “Not on our watch!”
More people should have the same motto! We should have never gotten to this point in our nation, but now that we are here, I will stand with my fellow freedom loving Americans! On 9/12, I stood with many from around Tennessee and took the same oath the military takes, “…that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…“!
Two things have happened since the Homeland Security Department and Southern Poverty Law Center released their reports on extremism: Membership of Oath Keepers has spiked dramatically. And Rhodes has had to do a lot of explaining.
Only liberal racists (redundant?) would need to have common sense explained to them.
Another prominent Oath Keeper is former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack, who has long been an outspoken government critic.
The Southern Poverty Law Center calls Mack a “longtime militia hero” who helped weaken gun control laws.
Bless his heart! I wish I could have gone to hear Sheriff Mack speak when he was in East Tennessee recently. It’s not guns that need to be controlled. It’s the government, which is totally OUT of control. Of course criminals shouldn’t have guns. DUH! But criminals don’t care about gun laws, so what difference does it make?
Well, you get the idea. It’s a rather lengthy article, but if you want to, go read the whole piece. And while you’re at it, read some of the comments. Honestly, there is really no hope for some people. Clueless is an understatement. The majority of the comments I read were positive, but there are always moonbats in the bunch.
Perhaps this person should have titled his piece “Americans Already Revolted by Revolting Gov’t Policies“.
OATH KEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control.”
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
I can almost agree with all the oath points (‘cept 5.), but could see extreme cases where exceptions might be in order (for example, regional national disaster). Go back and reread the points with Katrina in mind. I don’t think that was one such case, but some gov’t response could be seen as violating those points. Where were the OK then?
What scares the left is not that people would take up arms, but that some are eager to take up arms, and actually see current conditions warranting it.
I’d strap on if the situation merited, but come on, suggesting we’re anywhere close now is just plain loopy.
By the way, how can we both support the Bill of Rights point by point, and end up on opposite ends of the political spectrum?
Jim, so ya don’t like state sovereignty, got it. I’m sure you’re aware that was THE reason that started the very unCivil War, right?
With Katrina in mind, I see that the police in NO violated the rights of the people on numerous times. Some people have never been able to get their weapons back, some that had been in the family for generations. Where were they? No one knew this was happening until after the fact. It’s obvious that the cops in NO won’t take their oath seriously. Bunch of freakin’ thugs.
Eager? I know no one who is eager, but if the need arises, it’s good to know that so many believe in the Constitution. So many have put their lives on the line, and lost them, for the God given rights on which this county was founded.
To answer you question: It means you are on the wrong side of things. LOL
Seriously? Well, perhaps it’s because I believe the Bill of Rights are God given rights, in place for the people, to be protected from the government of men, and you may think they are given by men, to control their fellow men? I’m not real sure.
Jim said:
I’d strap on if the situation merited, but come on, suggesting we’re anywhere close now is just plain loopy.
I hate to break this to you, but it (a revolution) has been needed for quite some time now. One of the many problems with the left is they disagree with the constitution, and think big, overreaching - overly powerful government is a GOOD thing.
Well, its against what our forefathers wanted, what the constitution says and just plain BAD.
Government has never fixed or solved anything, it only makes things worse, complicates things and makes people not want to do things for themselves (“Ill let the govt take care of me” mentality).
I say revolution is needed, because our govt has become so powerful, corrupt and greedy that there is no fixing it anymore. Its one sided, self serving, and feeding off of the labors of the comman man and rich man alike. The govt cannot sustain itself without leeching off of the public, especially with its current budget, spending and thought processes. We NEED govt social programs like we need a g*****n hole in the head.
I would say the only people that need govt assistance, are mentally and physically handicapped that are unable to provide for themsleves.
THATS IT.
But back on point, our govt is so far beyond reproach and what its supposed to be by moral, ethical and constitutional standards, the only option at this point is complete removal / starting over.
Being as congress will NEVER approve of this, and lobbyists / bereaucrats (sp?) are running things behind the scenes, the govt CERTAINLY isnt going to fix itself. Its a giant, unstoppable, corrupt wealth / prosperity sucking machine, i.e. vacuum of detriment to the American people.
IMO…..IF Thomas Jefferson were alive today, hed be shot down by DC police and secret service for charging at the whitehouse with a m-16, trying to overthrow the corrupt, insane establishment he fought so hard to create.
Food for thought.
Oh one last thing: we have the right to bear arms for just this reason, not for rabbit hunting.
Ooooo…. REAL bunny slippers! Grand idea.
Please delete my comment. I see I misunderstood Shadowblitz’ comment. Let me rewrite, please
Done! Not a problem.
Hey, Ol’Broad, nice essay!
Jimspice – Frankly, your comment smacks of demoralization, which pretends to agree with the righteous outrage you are conceding is out there. One reason that both the left and the right can agree on the Bill of Rights, and yet be on such different sides, is that the Left likes the Bill of Rights – for them – and wants to have the ability to decide what constitutes the Bill of Rights for others. The Left is incredibly intolerant of dissent, with a President spending his time putting Fox News on his enemies list, and discussing ways of shutting down the internet in case of “national emergency”. It seems to me that the shut down of the internet (and other lines of communications amongst free citizens) would, in and of itself, be a national emergency.
The problem with #5 you see is that there is also not enough respect for people’s God-given rights to self-determination. If Iran wants to have Khomeni as a ruler, that’s their business. It’s when they threaten the safety and stability of other countries that’s an issue. When Germany elected Hitler, no problem, their business. It’s when he went outside Germany to violate the rights of other countries’ citizens to their own self-determination that was the initial problem.
We can also argue about fascists who suppress their own people’s rights to self-determination – such as is arguably being done here, and now. So you see, defending #5 gets a whole lot clearer.
As for the “I’d strap on if the situation merited”… really? would you? People who defend the second amendment aren’t afraid of fellow citizens, secure in their liberties, exercising their God-given rights. What the Left is afraid of, as demonstrated constantly throughout today’s news (pick any day these days), are citizens who know their rights and who exercise them, as well as citizens who see through lies, disinformation and manipulation.
There were reports in the last presidential election of people feeling intimidated at some of the polls. So back to your discomfort about #5, the issue is much closer, enemies foreign and domestic and all that.
I don’t like the idea of violence at all. But demoralizing both the Constitution and people’s rights is a form of violence by tyrants who want to exploit me and others. And I don’t like that either.
I hear ya, Song… but unfortunately violence has been what makes the world go round since it was created, by either by God or Bigbang. I wish it was chocolate chip cookies, love, puppies and days at the beach that shape the world, but alas its not the case. Violence should be avoided when not neccessary, but never avoided when it is. If our forefathers had avoided it, wed be eating tea and crumpets and worshipping at the muslim altar like GB is.
@songspirit Well, I keep waiting for Jim to respond, but I guess he doesn’t have it in him. I was even gonna make the popcorn.
I didn’t respond because I really couldn’t follow the logic of the responses. I didn’t know where to start.
The point of my comment was that some on the right are ready to take up arms right now, and the responses sort of bore that out:
SBlitz:
“I hate to break this to you, but it (a revolution) has been needed for quite some time now.”
SSpirit:
“…fascists who suppress their own people’s rights to self-determination – such as is arguably being done here, and now”
Combine this with people buying ammo to the point of scarcity upon Mr. Obama’s election, and yes, I consider it kind of spooky.
I don’t worry about defending myself from these people, as I’ve heard the U.S. Government is quite capable of defending itself.
A few retorts in response to points I could follow:
“Government has never fixed or solved anything”
How about the Erie Canal? Now if you had said “hasn’t solved much” I’d have to provide more examples, but since you state the position in absolutes, I win with only one.
“One of the many problems with the left is they disagree with the constitution, and think big, overreaching - overly powerful government is a GOOD thing.”
Yeah, I don’t think so. I don’t disagree with the Constitution, besides some glaring mistakes which have been corrected, nor do any of my hippy, bleeding heart friends. Nor do we want “overly” powerful government. We want three-bears government where power is “just right.” We just think government should do a few more things than you do. And we like efficiency and hate waste just as much as you.
As for state sovereignty? I’m a strong states rights person, and I really like it when states have differing responses to problems because then you can more easily identify what works and what doesn’t. But no, my support stops short if secession.
Ok, I have to ask….just exactly what does the Erie Canal have to do with this? Did I miss some recent news?
Jim, all the gun dealers I’ve spoken to are saying the shortage of ammo is due to the government’s tight control on the supply, not from being bought out.
BTW, the Constitution is suppose to protect the people from the over reach of the government, and they are already doing too much. So, if y’all hate waste as much as we do, how come y’all keep supporting them? At least the conservatives are standing up again it. Y’all should join us.
Re: Erie Canal. I tried to come up with an inane example to demonstrate my point regarding ”absolutes”.
I didn’t know the government controlled ammo supply.
Disliking waste doesn’t mean I don’t want anything done. Small government to some means don’t do anything. To me it means do what you must efficiently. I see a role for government in, say, environmental protection, education, and health. They provide public goods beyond the benefits to those directly affected that would otherwise be unrealized by private action alone (because of the ol’ free rider problem). I would just like to see them done efficiently.
There should probably be a comma between that “must” and “efficiently” or it may be (more) confusing.
We’ll forgive ya for the typo. It happens.
The government has been standing on the necks of manufacturers….from my understanding, and why on earth would you think they don’t have their fingers in that pie as well?
It’s quite amazing that this country ran just fine until the government starting encroaching more and more into what was once a community responsibility, like education, for example. Communities should also be responsible for cleaning up any messes it makes, and shove the EPA right down the cesspool, where it belongs. Big government is NOT efficient, and never will be.